User talk:Sci
- Lieutenant Ayala 05:14, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Timeline Pages We're trying to figure out what kind of format to use for timeline pages. Some examples are at 2380, if you'd like to give an opinion or cast a vote.--Chops 19:44, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I'm afraid that I almost never use the timelines, and so have no opinion on it one way or the other. -- Sci 8:23 22 November 2005 UTC Please cite your sources. Min Zife and President of the United Federation of Planets, which you have done most of the work on, are both missing references. * Both of those pages have source citations at the end of the articles. -- Sci 6:28 UTC 20 Nov 2005 ::Whoops, didn't see those. I was looking for in-line citations, because they tell the reader which pieces of information come from which sources. Since I'm in the midst of those books, I'll see what I can do about making them more specific as I go. --Chops 23:39, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::Hehe. 'Tis okay; it's the way I tend to collect information, I'm afraid -- I mix and match the info from various books into one particular topic, but almost never have the patience to bother noting which piece of info comes from what, let alone remember to do it as I'm writing the article. Then later I gather together all the books I took the info from and list them at the bottom of the page, leaving it to the reader to figure out what comes from where. That might be a violation of Memory Beta's policies, but it's just how my brain works; anyone seeking to attach a given piece of info to a given book is certainly welcome to! -- Sci 8:23 22 November 2005 ::::Well, I never bothered to write it down anywhere official while I had this place to myself, so I guess it's just my preference. If it's really a bother to you, I guess it doesn't matter that much. --Chops 02:27, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC) News Agencies and Trill President Some stuff you might be interested in. For your news agency template, Catalyst of Sorows shows a reporter from the Altair Information Syndicate asking Admiral Uhura a question. Also, I've been scaning images for articles, and noticed that Trill president Lirisse Maz from the Worlds of Deep Space Nine series made a viewscreen appearance in the Divided We Fall comic. If you want, I'll scan and upload. -- turtletrekker :Muchos gracias! I'll definitely add that bit about the Altair Information Service, but feel free to add anything you'd like, too, of course! I'd definitely like to see a scan of President Lirisse Maz; alas, alack, I own neither Catalyst of Sorrows nor Divided We Fall! -- Sci 10:52 29 March 2006 UTC "Enterprise" Deletions I'm sorry, I should've explained the deletions better. All of those articles were copied directly from Memory Alpha, with the exception of one chunk, which I preserved in the associated talk page. That constitutes blatant copyright infringement, so I performed a speedy deletion. What I now realize I should've done is say where the articles were copied from, not just that they were against the liscense. --Chops 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :Was it really necessary to delete the articles outright? I should think shaving them down to one or two lines of basic info ("The Enterprise (__) was a ship in the year __") would be sufficient to address any concerns about copyright violation. After all, editing is to be expected in a wiki, whereas wholesale deletion just comes across as heavy-handed. --70.94.229.133 17:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) ::Considering that (except in one case) the copied info was all the information that had been added, I thought it was more appropriate to remove all trace of the article, including its history. However, if people really have a problem with this, I'll reverse the speedy deletions and put them through the normal process. I just don't see the ambiguity in erasing something that we shouldn't legaly have in here in the first place. --Chops 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Tempalte:Infobox Federation You've replaced this with Template:StateInfobox, right? All I need is your OK for a speedy deletion. --Chops 19:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC) :Definitely go ahead and delete it. -- Sci 20:01 7 May 2006 UTC UFP Presidential Seal Is the image copyrighted?--Kevin W. 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) :I saw no copyright notation on the page. I suppose since it's based on the presidential seal we saw on DS9 and in STIV, it's copyrighten, but I'm not sure if it's copyrighten to Paramount Pictures or to CBS Paramount Television. -- Sci 03:57 6 AUG 2006 UTC :It is copyrighted to the artist who created the picture -- the commercial usage rights of anything designed for Star Trek belong to Paramount, but the artist gets the final say whether or not we can use it here -- so who created it??? -- Captain MKB 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) artist identification Sci, any artist ID or copyright on the Terran Empire seal you uploaded? its not a screencap and you haven't identified where you got the image from. -- Captain MKB 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) WWIII Are you sure about your edit to World War III? I just saw a couple days ago, and it seemed pretty clear they were referring to the end of WWIII, not the UN. IIRC, the same data is referenced in The Good That Men Do, as well. --TimPendragon 09:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) : I am almost certain. Archer never references World War III specifically, but in real-world history, that's what happened -- the nations of the Earth gathered in San Francisco to try to ensure that another war would never happen again by founding the UN. It makes no sense to assume he's talking about World War III when it matches real history. : For the record, the exact quote from Samuels is: "Having endured a catastrophic World War, Earth's governments came to this city for the purpose of creating a just and lasting peace among nations." Well, that's exactly what happened in the 1940s, and nothing about it actually indicates that it's a reference to WW3. : What part of The Good That Men Do references a post-WW3 treaty being signed in San Fran? -- Sci 22:41 4 DEC 2008 UTC Image formatting Please be aware that you should not set image sizes for images using the thumb code. The thumb code automatically sizes images according to user preferences, and putting in an set image size overrides this preference. Locking an image at a size should only be done when strictly necessary for keeping order on some part of page layout (which is almost never). Please also be aware that it is not necessary to code in a "right" placement for thumb images as the thumb code automatically places images to the right. And while not relevant to your recent editing, for your future reference there is also a code command: "upright", to be used with images of portrait proportions which reduces the width of tall images and continues to resize images with the thumb setting per user preferences. Also please be aware that the link Destiny does not link to the Star Trek: Destiny page, to link correctly to the Destiny page you must use the "st" template within a citation to generate the link with the Star Trek prefix, for example: |Mere Mortals}}. Additioanlly, when citing multiple sources of the same format it is not necessary to use multiple templates. Rather than "( , , , .)" you should cite like this "( )". Thank you. --8of5 19:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Ciao Sci, in response to your response, you are quite right, I probably did get a little... sharp, here. And rest assured I would certainly be more measured with a new user - with an established user such as yourself I tend to assume you'd know what you're doing, so the need to note an error seems that little bit more irksome. Apologies for any conclusion jumping and subsequent snappiness. And you can also be sure your contributions are very much valued, you're the primary contributor the majority of the political articles here! --8of5 22:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ''Tanwa-seynorral'' Sorry! Probably wasn't paying attention! – CommodoreFisher 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Imperial Romulans Hey, Sci... Saw your recent edit to the note on Emperor of the Romulan Star Empire. Nice work... except that now it implies Shiarkiek had a fourteen year-old consort, which, aside from being downright creepy, I really don't think works at all. If "queen consort" is preferable to a "queen regent" situation, and I'm not so sure that it is, then we should probably note different continuities. Otherwise, the honorable Shiarkiek becomes a dirty old man. And yes, I know it's not unheard of in Imperial circles in the real world, but I don't think it was the intent of any of the authors. Why couldn't the Empress title be purely ceremonial or traditional, with Shiarkiek as the reigning Emperor? --TimPendragon 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) :If you want to go the differing continuities route, by all means. My general rule is to assume that it's all in one continuity unless it's just logically impossible, but I haven't read either of the novels featuring those alternate Empresses so wouldn't know either way. I assume that since no logical contradiction was mentioned in the article, there is none, but that could certainly be erroneous. :As for Shiarkiek, keep in mind that even if he has a 14-year-old Empress Consort, that doesn't mean necessarily that they're actually having sex or in love, or have any real relationship. It's entirely possible that it's a political marriage and that Shiarkeik never touched her. -- Sci 20:27 28 JAN 2009 UTC Spelling I will keep that in mind for future edits. Thanks! --Trip Endres 06:40, March 11, 2010 (UTC) History Should you care to discuss American history in detail, please stop trying to undo 3 years of edits to pages and engage me directly. I majored in History at the University of New Mexico. Among other courses on the subject, I did attend an American Civil War history class as well as two surveys of American history. Most recently, I attended a course on Texas history, which included the War Between the States. I have, and have read, numerous volumes on the subject, and would be happy to provide references that will all tell you to leave the article alone. As far as Trek goes, I believe if you look around, you will find that most references to that period come from Leonard McCoy. He takes a decidedly southern viewpoint on the "War for Southern Independence", as you may imagine. An edit war is not the solution to your ignorance on the subject. – AT2Howell 13:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :The Declarations of the causes of secession issued by the seceding states all cited slavery as their motive for seceding. "States' rights" is just Confederate apologia revisionist history. If states' rights were the real reason, the Confederate States Constitution would not have limited states' rights in comparison to the United States Constitution. :Meanwhile, if you're going to start an insipid fight over something so irrelevant to the wiki, I'd suggest that the article either be revised to refer to the "twin issues of states' rights and slavery" or that references to the cause of the war be deleted. -- Sci 20:39 27 AUG 2010 UTC So that's your answer? To you, our choices are to either revert these articles to their extremely one sided and simplistic versions (three years ago) or delete sections from them? I rather like what Sulfur did. He changed "states' rights" to "rights". I find this to be accurate. If the South left BECAUSE Lincoln outlawed slavery, then it would have been about slavery. The North most certainly did NOT enter the war to free slaves, rather to bring the southern states back under federal control. And I believe you will find that the majority of southerners were not in favor of slavery, innovation was fast creating a climate in which slavery would no longer be profitable, and Lincoln didn't get even interested in slavery until two years into the war. You've got a CSA made up of slave owners (white and black) and free men (white and black) fighting the North because the North would not let them leave a nation which they felt no longer represented them. Lincoln refused to let them go. The "gentlemen's agreement" of the United States became a "suicide pact" under Lincoln. No one with half a brain would argue that the South wasn't raped and beaten into submission. Like I said, you want to make the war about slavery, then write a book and convince academia. Until then, don't go 'round quoting some high school history teacher's banal version of American history. – AT2Howell 21:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC) : ... Sci ... AT2 ... both of you ... please ... remember ... what ... website .. you .. are .. using .. :Memory Beta is not interested in personal opinions or even informed discourse about the details of the civil war. :Before you add anything to this article, please forget everything you think you know and ask yourself "In what episode of Star Trek did they state causes of the civil war?" :If they haven't described it in detail in Star Trek, why bother to make a spectacle of yourselves and start a fight about it here? It's not relevant to Memory Beta... -- Captain MKB 21:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :AT2, I'm not having this fight with you here. If you want to make a fight out of this nonsense claim that the war was over "states' rights," find me on TrekBBS. I can't say it even occurred to me that anyone would make an issue over this edit. But if it bugs you that much, like I said, either edit it to refer to both states' rights and slavery, or to remove references to the cause of the war altogether. -- Sci 02:04 29 AUG 2010 UTC ::I don't even think this is a real argument to be serious with you guys -- the right to be decisive about policy on slavery is a state's right -- so no matter how you argue it, both reasonings have a modicum of validity -- one is more simplistic, one is more expansive. While slavery was an issue of the day, it wasn't the only issue causing a rebellion. "States' rights" is the more accurate answer, since it encompasses the one issue among others, while saying "slavery" ignore the other issues and oversimplifies the information by omitting any other issues. ::AT2 is probably just taking this as another opportunity to agitate others on the wiki, again, he doesn't realize that this is a Star Trek database, not a soapbox for his personal ramblings. -- Captain MKB 15:17, August 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I think that it's a fundamentally dishonest use of language not to include a mention of slavery, even if it's in the context of referring to both states' rights and slavery -- the states that seceded even issued declarations of the causes of secession that explicitly said they seceded because they felt that the federal government under Lincoln would threaten the institution of slavery. (No, Lincoln wasn't necessarily out to ban slavery when he assumed office, but the South thought he was, and that's why they left.) Not including slavery ignores the essential question of mid-1800s America: the rights of enslaved persons. Were there other factors? Sure. But that doesn't make them equal to the question of the rights of persons held in bondage. -- Sci 20:47 29 AUG 2010 UTC ::::Honestly, the article shouldn't say anything that wasn't stated in Trek. -- sulfur 01:24, August 30, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, was out for the weekend. This being trek, most of our references come from Leonard McCoy's ramblings about "damn yankees", so let's apply a little logic here. The southern states left because Lincoln was elected. This was taken by them as a sign that they were no longer represented in the United States. Did Lincoln say, "I will now free the slaves" and that is why they left? No. Union troops pressed into the South for the next 4 years. Why? Was it to free the slaves? No, it was to force them back into the union. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclimation to go into effect in 1863, but the war had started in 1861. Why would he do this? To gain support for the war. Still not convinced? "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862) "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (1st Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861) "We must free the slaves or be ourselves subdued. The slaves were undeniably a element of strength to those who had their service, and we must decide whether that element should be with us or "against us". Emancipation, will strike at the heart of the rebellion." -- Said to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles. Slavery became a weapon against the 'rebellion' not the cause of it. And you will notice, that even with the documentation of states' rights, there is still quite a bit in those articles about slavery. It's not like we ignored it. Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying WWII was about liberating Auschwitz. Both were important and good things that resulted from military action, but neither were the cause. And no Capt, I'm not just up on a soap box. I can't be a party to the diffusion of ignorance, or, as we said in the navy, "I will not put out bad gouge." If you insist upon spreading misinformation, then I suppose that I would prefer deletion. However, I feel that, as with other similar topics, we must provide some level of context. I found the context to be just fine for the last three years, but evidently some did not. – AT2Howell 14:44, August 30, 2010 (UTC) Andorian symbol Excuse me, you should not be changing the usages of the Andorian symbol while the matter is under discussion. I know you think you're right, but it is disrespectful of others' viewpoints to revert their valid explained changes with your own interpretation, while the matter is still under discussion on a talk page. Please try and calm down and we can deal with this in a more reasonable manner. -- Captain MKB 17:17, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :It is just as disrespectful of others to change the emblem in the first place without having a discussion. I'm simply restoring what was originally there until the issue can be resolved. See the talk page of "Andorian Empire" for my proposals. -- Sci 17:18 25 SEPT 2010 UTC ::I've responded there, and again I say that you should not be making any edits to reinforce your views when those views have not been discussed, or when your interpretations have been rejected by other contributors using valid sources as their reasoning. -- Captain MKB 17:21, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :::You mean the way someone, unilaterally, decided to remove all uses of the ENT Andorian symbol and replace them with the SFTM Andorian symbol? That kind of making an edit to reinforce your views when those views have not been discussed? Is that an example of what not to do? (I, by contrast, I have proposed keeping and using both symbols, and made it a point not to delete the other symbol in the "Planet Andor" template, which is more than you can say.) -- Sci 17:35 25 SEPT 2010 UTC ::I've proposed, in the original discussion, that we keep both symbols also, with the current explanation that one symbolizes the Empire (as per the SFTM), and the other one is of unspecified provenance (since no one has supplied any solid info what it stands for). ::The image is unattributed. Until the attribution is clarified, yes, I can and will remove it from pages. I chose to start a discussion regarding its use at the same time, but the image gained my attention because it was uploaded without a proper citation and should not have been used on pages. You have initiated an edit war by restoring the image while it is still under discussion. -- Captain MKB 17:43, September 25, 2010 (UTC) ::: "Unattributed?" Let's look at the attribution policy: :::: "When you upload an image, make sure you own the image, or that it is in the Public Domain, or that the copyright holder has agreed to license it under the GNU FDL, free document license. Please note its copyright status on the image description page. :::: Images that are screenshots and other snapshots from Star Trek episodes and movies, and scans of book covers, fall under the category of fair use, as long as they are not posted in large numbers. Be sure to include the appropriate boilerplate message with the description. :::: Many Star Trek fans and licensed publications spend time creating their own artwork, either recreating images from the shows or original scenes inspired by the shows. Do not upload previously published or fan-created images to Memory Alpha without the express consent of the author. If you do upload an original fan image, you must include a note naming the original author, a link to the author's website as a source, and confirm that the image is posted with the author's consent. This may require leaving a notice on the image's talk page.' :::Now, that's the '''current' policy. I uploaded the AndoiranEmblem image in December 2005 -- just short of five years ago. At the time, I put a note/link on the page attributing it to Ex Astris Scientia, which is all that the EAS fellow asks for. :::Now, I can find no information on what the image attribution policy was back in December 2005. The various policy pages that cover image attributions, as near as I can tell, were all created in 2007. :::Now, if you feel that the original attribution is no longer sufficient under the new policy, then, hey, fine, please shoot me a message and I'll adjust it accordingly. But to just unilaterally decide to delete it is, frankly, disrespectful of me and my contribution to this wiki. You started the edit war by doing that instead of bothering to look at the image history, see that I was the person to upload it, and ask me to adjust the image attribution so that it's in line with the new policy. -- Sci 17:57 25 SEPT 2010 UTC ::My solution was to institute alternate images, with detailed sourcing. I started doing that but hadn't found another version of this image when your actions started re-including it in pages, and started an argument over my simple question of the image's use. That is disruption in my edits, and edit warring also. All I'm doing is asking you to open up and take part in this process. -- Captain MKB 18:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC) :::I have taken part in the process. You, on the other hand, tried to unilaterally decide to replace all ENT symbol images with ones from a non-canonical source. That is starting an edit war. Had you actually brought that up on the image's discussion page before remove it from other pages, that would be reasonable. Instead, you started an edit war, disrespected other posters, and insulted me by falsely accusing me of having it out for the SFTM numerous time, and tried to accuse me of starting your edit war. -- Sci 18:13 25 SEPT 2010 UTC ::::I removed the image because it was unattributed. ::::I replaced it because a valid replacement was available. ::::I contested your reversion of those moves because the older image has not been satisfactorily explained or attributed, and the newer image remains valid. I have continued the discussion in good faith. ::::I have not attacked you, I have only taken these simple actions. ::::Since you insist on being unreasonable, I ask you to wait for another admin to help you express yourself, based on your irrational attitude towards me and you paranoia against imagined attacks. -- Captain MKB 18:22, September 25, 2010 (UTC) And now you lie? It was attributed. It was explicitly attributed, with a link, to Ex Astris Scientia. It may not have been attributed in the manner that the new attribution policy would prefer, because it was uploaded and attributed years before that policy was written and because I and literally everyone else simply never thought to update the attribution up until now. But it was attributed. And now you engage in even more ad hominem attacks, characterizing me as irrational and paranoid when I have clearly stated what ad hominem attacks you have engaged in. -- Sci 18:25 25 SEPT 2010 UTC :Here's another admin: I believe Sci is correct, the image was attributed, and as far as i can see that attribution was removed in favour of template to ask for attribution as deemed necessary by much more recent edits and policy enforcement. If the attribution needed more detail or clarification that's fine, and could have easily been addressed on the image talk page; removing what was already there, was unconstructive. --8of5 11:10, September 26, 2010 (UTC) Edit wars Sci, you seem to have a problem operating in the system and rules of this wiki again in your edit war with the anonymous user at President of the United Federation of Planets. Please follow Memory Beta policy and avoid entering into edit wars -- there should be talk page discussion registering the issues involved. -- Captain MKB 17:06, October 11, 2010 (UTC) :From Memory Beta:Strive for community solutions: ::Wikis work better because they rely on the community, rather than technology, to police itself. If someone comes along and deletes text or posts spam, someone else can just as easily fix the problem. :From Memory Beta:Dealing with vandalism: ::Dealing with vandalism is simple and straightforward — if you find a page that has been vandalized, all you have to do is perform the following steps: ::Revert the page to the last unvandalized version. ::And that's it! It's that simple! :An arbitrary deletion of relevant canonical information is vandalism (as established in "Strive for community solutions"). I did not engage in any personal attacks. At the very least, my behavior is consistent with Memory Beta's Policies and Guidelines. -- Sci 17:37 11 OCT 2010 UTC Grudge :Guys, I'd like to ask you to please refrain from getting into a fight with Captainmike. It will undermine our position if our supporters are viewed as acting on a personal grudge against him when we present our letter to the Memory Beta Community. I'd like to testify that I definitely see evidence of a long-standing grudge against me. It certainly undermines whatever "position" you guys were trying to perpetrate against me. Why not try and communicate openly and in a cooperative manner? I haven't been apporached like that ... well, since i started here. -- Captain MKB 08:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC) Moving pages When moving pages, please do not cut data from one page and paste it into another. Doing this loses all of the history of that article. To do this properly, move the articles. If you are unable to do that, comment on the talk page that it should be done, and explain why it should be done. -- sulfur (talk) 12:38, April 4, 2014 (UTC)